As Seen in Vanity Fair's August 2006 Issue!
As Seen in US News & World Report's September 11 Fifth Anniversary Issue!
As Seen in Time Magazine's September 11, 2006 Issue!
As Seen in Phoenix New Times' August 9, 2007 Issue!

Friday, November 23, 2012

And Now for Something Not Completely Different

As it happens, I found myself in the car for a three-hour drive with a close friend who wanted to talk about his personal conspiracy theories. This is someone whose company I generally enjoy, although at times in the past I have had hints that he was a CTist.

He knows that I am a CT debunker so he asked me to watch this movie about the Rothschilds:

I was able to download from my local library, the book The Rothschild's: Money's Prophets, by Niall Ferguson from which several quotes in the above video are quite obviously lifted, while (of course) the conclusion (that the Rothschilds were fabulously wealthy in the 1800s, but have suffered the inevitable relative decline, compared to more recent fortunes, of all great wealth over time) is ignored.

Although I did do some debunking of the YT video, at the same time, I approached the matter from a different direction. I pointed out that in my dealings with CTists in the past, there was always some underlying situation that the CT explained. My fellow traveler explained that:

1. He is dissatisfied in his life and looking for a reason why it did not turn out as he expected.
2. He suffered a financial decline due to the real estate market crash.
3. He likes watching YT videos after he is done at his workplace as he doesn't have internet at home.
4. He doesn't feel like reading books because they take too much time.

Aside from that, although he is generally a nice guy, I definitely got the feeling that he is ready to believe anything negative about the Jews/Israel. Let me point out as well, that he is not a fool; he is an engineer by training, runs his own interesting business that has excellent potential for growth and is a solid and improving poker player (how I came to know him).

What is my point? Well, there are several. First, not every CTist is an obvious nutcase. Second, the current economy undoubtedly encourages CT thought even though the election(s) of Obama have somewhat cooled the theories about Bush and 9-11. Third, even intelligent people can believe very foolish-seeming videos if they reinforce their existing beliefs.

Incidentally, after we talked about the above Rothschild video, he suggested that I look up another one; which is made up of 18 parts. Here's Part One:

Obvious issues:
1. Easily debunked; for example, the Star of David was in use well before the Rothschilds' ascendance. The idea that the Rothschilds are not Jews is silly; a Jew named Arthur Koestler came up with the idea that the Askenazi are actually Khazars as a way to convince Christians not to blame them for the crucifixion of Jesus. But since then, DNA analysis has revealed that the vast majority of Jews are, in fact, descended from a subset of people who lived in the Middle East in antiquity.

2. My friend does not want to read a book, but that video is nothing but reading (very slowly).

3. Also note the description of the film by the poster:

First in the series of Eighteen.
House of Rothschild
NOT A ANTI-SEMITIC, Jewish folks are @ danger Too.
This Is Strictly a History of a Families Conquest of Ultimate Power, and Wealth. They and Families like them agree "They " know how the People should be controlled (Threw. Media, Wars, Breeding, and Economic Means Food Energy, TO BE PROFITABLE (to them and other families).

Down through History, The Rothschild's plan of Engulfing the Worlds, Money, and People Like a fat blotted Tsunami. Ashkenazi Jew From Khazaria the land between the Black Sea and the Caspian Sea.
Not from Israel, Zionist have Loyalty only to Their Blood line not the poor Jewish people, but use them as the did in World War II.
Sit back and enjoy the history of the most diabolical Plan ever set forth, if you can stomach it.

Why did you run from the questions in the last thread, fat man? You said that the wings had been "sheared off" and "ignited in a fireball" in an interview on Youtube. Remember that? It was broadcast to an audience of... well, tens, easily.

You said you couldn't find it on Google, which really shows the sad inadequacy of your research skills (yet again).

What was your source for this claim, Pat? Use citations and photos. Aren't you a "debunker"? Why do I have to show that you're a liar so many times?

The Pentagon BPAT says both the wingtips were sheared off, PC. They say the left wingtip hit the ground and the right wingtip hit the construction trailer. They say this because they can't otherwise explain why the damage to the facade is narrower than the wingspan of the plane (projected at a 45 degree angle).

Though the facade damage does not match well with a 757 approaching from the SW at a 45 degree angle to the wall, the facade damage matches very well with a western approach at 90 degrees on the course reported by the 13 witnesses Craig and Aldo collected. I have tended to suspect that these witnesses were hoaxing two asshole "truthers" from California, but what if they were telling the truth? If that's so then Craig and Aldo, far from laboring to reveal a smoking gun are, with their absurd flyover hypothesis serving to obscure one.

Actually, it takes about 10 seconds to mock you and another 10 to laugh at your humiliated squealing. It's no great lengths.

And yes, while your pathetic failure of a life does make me feel better about myself, that's not my primary motivation for posting here, since I feel pretty good about myself regardless. It's more for the mild amusement I get when you post hysterical spam about widows. It's like reading Failblog.

Ian, I proved that Willie's claim that he saved hundreds was a lie. NIST's death statistics show that the survival rates on Willie's 39 floors were no higher than on any of the other 120-something floors under the impact where he didn't open doors.

I also showed that his claim of a 22-story internal collapse that he alone experienced was essential to sustain his alleged heroism, showing that this persistent element of his story was not a mistake but a cynical lie.

Without the 22-story collapse we have a story about a man turning his back on hundreds of people trapped behind locked fire exit doors on floors 40 to 87 to go help carry one disabled man down the stairs to the ground.

NIST's death statistics show that the survival rates on Willie's 39 floors were no higher than on any of the other 120-something floors under the impact where he didn't open doors.

Which proves nothing.

I also showed that his claim of a 22-story internal collapse that he alone experienced was essential to sustain his alleged heroism, showing that this persistent element of his story was not a mistake but a cynical lie.

False.

Without the 22-story collapse we have a story about a man turning his back on hundreds of people trapped behind locked fire exit doors on floors 40 to 87 to go help carry one disabled man down the stairs to the ground.

False.

I call him "Wizzie" because he Wizzes on the graves of the dead.

No, you call him "Wizzie" because you've invented cutesy nicknames for him in the delusional world in which you and he get married and he buys you all the Victoria's Secret panties your little heart desires.

Ian, petgoat's drawing was not the first of the iconic meatball on a fork. Actually it is of ancient and divine origin as recounted in the book of Johnny Spaghetti (BbHm). http://churchoftheholymeatball.org/johnny.html

Why would you expect a journal to have any interest in the plagiarized creation of an anonymous internet poster?

I wonder why nobody feels concerned by the outcomes of the terrorist attacks? Why nobody talks about Afghanistan and Iraq? I don't care if it has been made by a plane or a widow in panty, I care about what the administration made because of that. Was it all OK? Do you believe that obama is able to handle the death of ben laden in front, and we are not? Do we make a war that is woth 1000 billions for one man? At least it is the proof the goverment is tremendously stupid.

Your assumption that the government is stupid seems to be based on the belief that you have identified the values behind its decisions and actions.

If the motivating values were augmenting Presidential power and government power in general, reducing civil liberties, increasing military power, and transferring money from the citizens to the military-industrial complex, and ensuring a state of endless war for decades to come, then the outcomes of the terrorist attacks have been enormously successful.

"Your assumption that the government is stupid seems to be based on the belief that you have identified the values behind its decisions and actions."

Not really, my belief is they are men, and I met the smartest ones, they couldn't achieve a conspiracy. if it's for money, oil and all that stuff, I guess it's classical and they are not that bright, but I know men, and I can hardly believe nobody can counteract such plans, I can hardly believe on such planification, I can hardly believe someone is able during a life to learn with so much precision how to manipulate people, so I can assume that large parts of what they intended to do failed, and like in any human project, the goal(s) weren't achieve exactly as expected. I also know media and "people" use to have more imagination than real individuals. On the other side, If there is some truth behind their claimed intentions, what a bunch of idiots.I don't believe in conspiracy, I more believe in opportunities, and coalition of opportunists, at least until some individuals become immortal. So they are at least idiot because they really think they can handle the world the way they want, and it obviously failed, Iraq has not been such a good investment regarding oil. US use to apply always the same strategies on foreign countries, but its power is decreasing. We are more in trouble because of stupid idealists who really believe in their act than because of kooks.Please forgive my english, I am french.

Your belief that people can not be manipulated is contradicted by the fact that every business enterprise is an exercise in manipulating its customers and its employees, and discarding the employees it can not manipulate.

You assume that large parts of what they intended to do failed, and you're right. The 9/11 psyop failed in many of its features, (for instance forcing the Commander in Chief of the US military to sit on his butt on videotape waiting for a hijacked airliner to hit the Pentagon) and it's only the media freeze that has kept this fact from the people.

I don't see your distinction between a "coalition of opportunists" and a conspiracy. Call it a "confluence of interest"; I don't care. It's just semantics.

Iraq has not been such a good investment in terms of producing oil, but in terms of keeping the Iraq oil off the market and generating business for the American military-inmdustrial complex it's been magnificent. Again, you need to question what are the values driving the decisions.

Your English is fine. Sometimes you don't use exactly the right word, but that's OK. Most native speakers don't use exactly the right word either. Practice makes perfect.

I don't understand what you mean when you say "If bush didn't go in afghanistan, no conspiracy could have stand up."

What I meant was: if bush didn't go to Afghanistan no conspiracy THEORY about 9/11 could have any credit.

People can sometimes be manipulated, but not so perfectly that you can achieve incredible goals. You can not manipulate people, not because of people, but because of war against different powerful groups. That is also why I don't talk about conspiracy, and I make a distinction between opportunists. Opportunists don't share necessarily the same goal, and at a given point, can change their mind and work for the opponent,and indeed there are many many opponents, this is not a chess game. The conspiracies people talk about are always stories of an almighty capitalist neocons, jews most of the times or working with, that can do exactly what they want around the world. This is nothing but true, you have smart and wicked people all around the world, and they also achieve to benefit from situations, they can take back the government (as it is the case in Irak and afghanistan, that are really a fail), they can use weapons against the ones who gave to them (lybia), and they can be supply by other opponent nations.Take a look at china, you could probably discover a lot of conspiracies. Eventually conspiracies theory lacks what the US in general lacks, they just don't see the whole world, and overestimate their power, whereas they are the nation that is most interested by it. The real power is in the mass.Guitarbill is pathetic, you can say he works for the government, but I think he only works for and with his dick

If the motivating values were augmenting Presidential power and government power in general, reducing civil liberties, increasing military power, and transferring money from the citizens to the military-industrial complex, and ensuring astate of endless war for decades to come, then the outcomes of the terrorist attacks have been enormously successful.

That wasn't the motivating value. Next!

Your belief that people can not be manipulated is contradicted by the fact that every business enterprise is an exercise in manipulating its customers and its employees, and discarding the employees it can not manipulate.

Wow, Brian's bitter over the fact that he could never hold down a menial job and lives with his parents at age 60 because he's unemployed!

Iraq has not been such a good investment in terms of producing oil, but in terms of keeping the Iraq oil off the market and generating business for the American military-inmdustrial complex it's been magnificent. Again, you need to question what are the values driving the decisions.

Ah yes, this is the kind of brilliant insight into global economics and politics we've come to expect from a mentally ill unemployed janitor who lives with his parents.

What I meant was: if bush didn't go to Afghanistan no conspiracy THEORY about 9/11 could have any credit.

I don't think so. Many truther conspiracy theories about Afghanistan leave 9/11 out entirely as a motivation. They go on about some secret pipeline that would be built once the US had control of Afghanistan. As you can see from the incoherent babbling of "snug.bug", oil is always the motivating factor for conspiracy theories about US international actions.

The conspiracies people talk about are always stories of an almighty capitalist neocons, jews most of the times or working with, that can do exactly what they want around the world.

Yeah, that's what "snug.bug" believes. It's nonsense to anyone with a decent understanding of how the world works.

Well I agree that no truther care about afghansitan, my point is it was the stem. You couldn't have suspect anything if the reaction of the bush administration would have been only to reinforce the power of antiterrorism agencies. We all obviously know the US didn't care about talibans do they? They have been supplied by the US to fight against russian, but they later became opponents to the US, very sad strategy indeed. I can not find any good reason to fight in afghanistan, there are "only potential" gas stocks, some oil, that already belongs to the chinese and huge amount of lithium, that could be more and more important in the future, only if we don't find any new way to make batteries. Indeed china is already in the country extracting ressources. Maybe if one has to find a hidden reason, it is a fight against China on its boudary, China is always underestimated in the news, but now second, or first economic power in the world. Another possibility is that it was a meaningless reaction only followed by only few fool interest. Of course there are a lot of hypothesis, but I can't believe US made war only for ben laden. (which was officialy in pakistan afterall).The Irak war WAS certainly an oil war, or at least a war based on fake mass destruction weapons, sustained by some groups like exxon. Sadly, exxon is theatening bagdad to leave the oil fields of the south Irak cause it cost too much to upgrade the fields after years of war, and already deal with the clandestine kurd government for oil fields in the north. If it is a poker game, then it proves at least it wasn't such a good opportunity to go there. The upgrade of the field could cost 100 billions, 100 biiiiiiiiiiillions, can you imagine that? For a company to invest such an amount of money it needs to be very lucrative. And it's borderline lucrative. Finally I don't have a point, except the fact that THERE are bastards who sustain war in order to make benefits, it always has been like that, but it is finally always more complicated. The rich people are not necessarily the smartest ones. Thus they fail, and this is why conspiracies are wrong, you try to explain everything by conspiracy, never guessing the "rulers" can make mistakes and fail. Failing is human, and they are.Last point relative to the conversation, but I understand this is not the place to talk about oil, the prices will be high for ever, nobody needs it to be artificially controlled.Last point about me: hey come on, I am also unemployed, and I live with my mum. World has just became totally insane since absolutely all chief want to hire the best of the best of the best, and also because of the subprime crisis ;).

Arrêtez-vous la. Why is it necessary to find a hidden reason? The official stated reason for fighting in Afghanistan was to remove the Taliban, because bin Laden was deriving support from them. Explain why one should reject that reason.

Until now you have been very polite, but I must use some shocking expressions, so don't blame my raving personality too much please. I wouldn't question the goal of moving the talibans if the intention of moving the talibans weren't "because they are badpeople who kill children". Of course talibans are nasty people who beat their wifes and burn the books, but guess what, who does exactly the same as talibans and is a very very good friend of the US? I heard Joe bidden last month telling they were ally, who do you think they are?? Saudian, one of the worst regime of the world, where you proud christian wouldn't be allowed to practice your worship, nor wear a cross on your chest or even at home... Where women are not allowed to drive, where the censorship of the internet is absolute, where the penalty for apostate is death, just like Iran. Do you know why they are your friends? Do you know rich saudian fund the terrorism with the money you give to them for oil? Another example Us don't care about freedom is why US doesn't move the dictatorship of north korea also? Oh and what about turkmenistan? Easy target. Talibans were a concern but not a primary one, bin laden is saudian, and he was hidden in pakistan, so why the US army was in afghanistan? You can find thousands of reasons as legitimate as talibans, if you really believe one makes war for freedom you are really ignorant. Do you think the vietnam war (which followed a french indochine war) was for freedom? Or the korea war? The ennemy is on the east, and now it is China, but if noone telle you, you don't notice.Please for once in your life, read this about Iraq:

People can be manipulated. The American people were manipulated by the neocons into stampeding into war in Afghanistan and Iraq, and into surrendering their constitutional liberties. The Secretary-General of the United Nations said the US invasions were war crimes, and yet the perpetrators remain unprosecuted. That is proof of the power of the neocons--whether you want to call them a cabal, a conspiracy, a confluence of interest, or a coalition of opportunists.

If GuitarBill had a dick, he would not find it necessary to expend such energies lying in internet chat rooms.

The invasion of Afghanistan can easily be understood if you consider the issues.

1. Zbigniew Brzezinsky (Obama's foreign policy advisor) wrote that control of Central Asia was the key to control of the world. Afghanistan provides a base for military actions against all the 'stans (including Pakistan) and Iran, and all the Gulf states.

2. Taliban had cut opium production by 95% in 2000. After the invasion, opium production was soon normal. The liquidity from illegal drug cash is essential to keep the international banking system running.

3. Afghanistan has enormously rich mineral deposits. This has been known since the Soviet era.

4. The oil pipeline was desired in 2001. It has not been built yet because the expected oil resources in the 'stans have not been confirmed, and because of the difficulties in defending such a vulnerable asset.

5. Perhaps the neocons believed their own nonsense and thought that Afghanistan could be easily conquered. The illusion that it had been conquered certainly blunted criticism of the Iraqw invasion. And a decade-long war is a wonderful profit opportunity for the military-industrial complex.

The truth movement certainly cares about Afghanistan. We pointed out that the Bush administration allowed 4000 Al Qaeda and Taliban soldiers to fly out from Kunduz to Pakistan, and allowed bin Laden and 1600 al Qaeda fighters to walk out from Tora Bora.

Here's a pretty good five-minute video about Afghanistan and 9/11 truth:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mprzq1mA9Jk&list=UUCU5Ac7Vd7cqPk074nnKSTw&index=7&feature=plcp

The "truth" movement doesn't give a damn about anything other than thread hijacking and bashing straw men as a substitute for real activism.

"...The 9/11 conspiracy theories are a displacement activity. A displacement activity is something you do because you feel incapable of doing what you ought to do. A squirrel sees a larger squirrel stealing its hoard of nuts. Instead of attacking its rival, it sinks its teeth into a tree and starts ripping it to pieces. Faced with the mountainous challenge of the real issues we must confront, the chickens in the “truth” movement focus instead on a fairytale, knowing that nothing they do or say will count, knowing that because the perpetrators don’t exist, they can’t fight back. They demonstrate their courage by repeatedly bayoneting a scarecrow." -- George Monboit

Jackass lies, "...your argument-by-false- allusion about ΔT and "Boyles" (sic) Law is a lie. I've already told you all about them many times."

Bullshit. You didn't know a thing about ΔT until I explained the concept to you, jackass. You, moreover, tried to apply Boyle's law when no differential pressure measurements were available. Clearly, you don't know when to apply Boyle's law versus the Ideal Gas Law, jackass.

FAIL

Idiot whines, "...Questions are evidence that the widows still have unanswered questions."

ButtGale, since 9/11 was the motivation for monstrous changes in the USA--illegal wars, presidential assassinations of American citizens, surrender of constitutional liberties, unprecedented embracing of dictatorial policies such as torture and tossing prisoners in the dungeon--demanding proof of the government's claims about what happened is not a "distraction". It is essential.

You didn't teach me anything about ΔT or Boyle's law. I knew about these things decades ago.

Yeah, that's why you refused to answer my question about ΔT UNTIL I GAVE YOU THE ANSWER. And that also explains why you don't know when to apply Boyle's law versus The Ideal Gas Law. You couldn't find your ass with a hunting dog and a compass.

The only person you manage to fool -- you incompetent, third-rate, homosexual sex predator -- is yourself, jackass.

Baiseur de chèvre whines, "...since 9/11 was the motivation for monstrous changes in the USA--illegal wars, presidential assassinations of American citizens, surrender of constitutional liberties...[blah][blah][blah]."

Still trying to learn the difference between a legitimate question and a LOADED question, jackass?

Is it any wonder that you're such an incompetent masturbateur chronique? Probably not.

Perhaps you can get together with Ali the Arab Child Molester (Aka, "Pat Cowardly) and expand your [cough] "sexual horizons" to include pederasty -- vous petit cul d'essuie-glace cerveau.

Benoit Avril, sure I can understand 100 billion$. That's 25 times the annual budget of Stanford University, that's what the top 5 US military contractors divide among themselves, that's 2-1/2 times what Lockheed gets from the feds every year, that's $300 for every man, woman and child in the USA, and $8 for every human being on earth.

The Iraqi oil is very close to the surface and can be produced for $1 a barrel, so I don't know where you get your $100 billion upgrade imperative.

Interestingly, both Iraq and Libya were threatening to start selling their oil in euros instead of dollars.

ButtGale, I refused to answer your question about ΔT because it was stupid and immaterial--but that doesn't stop you from continuing to blather and blather about it.

RGT, the reason for rejecting the official stated reason, that fighting in Afghanistan was to remove the Taliban, because bin Laden was deriving support from them, is that the USA rejected repeated attempts by Taliban to turn bin Laden over--including an offer in the spring of 2001--and because the USA allowed 4000 al Qaeda and Taliban to fly out of Kunduz into Pakistan, and allowed 1600 al Qaeda to walk into Pakistan from Tora Bora, as shown in this 5-minute video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mprzq1mA9Jk&list=UUCU5Ac7Vd7cqPk074nnKSTw&index=7&feature=plcp

"There was no molten steel. The iron microspheres reported in the RJ Lee report could easily have been caused by the steelworkers using acetylene torches on the steel during the rescue operation. The sampling took place in June of 2002."

Of course here he's limiting the issue to the microspheres in the RJ Lee report, and ignoring the Jones/Harrit samples taken on 9/11 and soon after.

For someone with an alleged "scientific reputation" you certainly go out of your way to avoid discussing REAL science. In fact, you'd be the first "scientist" I've ever known who doesn't love to talk about science.

Face it, Baiseur de chèvre, you don't know a goddamned thing about chemistry, physics or engineering. You're an Internet blowhard and an insane conspiracy cultist with the morals of a alley cat.

Again, why did you and Cowardly lie about the microspheres which are produced by an oxyacetylene torch?

You know what I was wondering the other day? Whether Mac usage skews higher among Truthers. We know Truthers are more prone to feeling-based impulses, and less able to process objective data. Apple fanbois are the same ("It pleases my sense of ________, therefore it's better").

ButtGale, that's not "the source" at all. If you had bothered to read the later paper, you would see that there were four samples, and one of them was collected from Brooklyn Bridge within a couple of hours of the collapse.

Would you mind explaining how microspheres from a torch made it to Brooklyn Bridge before the cleanup ops began? Or how they got into Jeanette's fourth-floor apartment and how they got into a building four blocks from GZ?

RGT, so you think bin Laden was not important before 9/11 even after the Embassy bombings and the USS Cole attack and the long standing knowledge of al Qaeda's plan to fly hijacked airliners into landmark buildings?

What about after 9/11? Taliban offered more than once to turn bin Laden over after 9/11. The US was not interested. And then of course the US let bin Laden walk out of Tora Bora. The Brits could have captured him, but they stepped aside to let the US do the honors, and the US did nothing.

UtterFail, you pretend you have a point but you don't. How did microspheres from cutting torches travel four blocks, travel up four stories, and travel to Brooklyn Bridge before cleanup ops even began? Obviously the spheres could only travel in the superheated dust of the collapse--not under the conditions of cleanup. You are surly because attitude is all you have--no facts, no reason, no sense.

Your inability to recognize the statistical untenability of Wizzie LiedRugAs's claims of hundreds saved casts much doubt on your claim that you have a MS in Applied Math.

Baiseur de chèvre lies, "... you pretend you have a point but you don't. How did microspheres from cutting torches travel four blocks, travel up four stories, and travel to Brooklyn Bridge before[blah][blah][blah]."

We've already been over this, liar.

The CHAIN OF CUSTODY for Jones' samples is BROKEN. As a result, Jones' samples ARE NOT ADMISSIBLE IN A COURT OF LAW. Thus, Jones' sample aren't evidence of ANYTHING.

Now stop changing the subject and answer the question, liar:

Why did you and Pat Cowardly lie about the microspheres which are produced by an oxyacetylene torch?

Baiseur de chèvre lies, "...How did cleanup torch microspheres get into Janette's fourth-floor apartment across the street?"

Again, Jones' samples are NOT evidence. The samples' chain of custody is broken. Thus, ANYONE COULD HAVE ALTERED THE SAMPLES. And given the 9/11 "truth" movements utter lack of credibility, it's PRUDENT to suspect the samples were altered.

Thus, Jones' samples aren't evidence.

Now stop changing the subject and answer the question, liar:

Why did you and Pat Cowardly lie about the microspheres which are produced by an oxyacetylene torch?

Baiseur de chèvre lies, "...What is your evidence that the chain of custody was broken?"

And here we have more proof that the most intelligent thing ever to emerge from Brian Good's mouth was a penis.

Idiot, we've already been over this.

"...The chain of custody requires that from the moment the evidence is collected, every transfer of evidence from person to person be documented and that it be provable that nobody else could have accessed that evidence." -- Wikipedia

Yes, you did lie. You know damned well that Jones said -- and I quote: "...the high-iron, relatively low oxygen spheres, which we find are unlike spheres gathered from cutting structural steel with an oxyacetylene torch."

Thus, you're a liar who deliberately mislead the reader. You know damned well that Jones is aware that an oxyacetylene torch does in fact produce iron microspheres.

FAIL

Idiot scribbles, "... What's your problem with the chain of custody?"

I've already explained this to you -- you empty headed animal. Again, this is a MASS MURDER INVESTIGATION. Thus, the evidence gathered in the investigation must adhere to strict standards.

"...When evidence can be used in court to convict persons of crimes, it must be handled in a scrupulously careful manner to avoid later allegations of tampering or misconduct which can compromise the case of the prosecution toward acquittal or to overturning a guilty verdict upon appeal. The idea behind recording the chain of custody is to establish that the alleged evidence is in fact related to the alleged crime, rather than having, for example, been planted fraudulently to make someone appear guilty." -- Wikipedia

"I wonder why nobody feels concerned by the outcomes of the terrorist attacks? Why nobody talks about Afghanistan and Iraq? I don't care if it has been made by a plane or a widow in panty, I care about what the administration made because of that. Was it all OK?"

We don't discuss the wars here because 9/11 Truth has undermined the anti-war effort. Nobody likes to hang around morons, and Truthers are morons. At every anti-war rally some moron has a sign or banned that says "9/11 was in inside job", and that sign always makes it into the news. This makes it easy ti ignore the rally.

The Afghan war is a separate issue from Iraq. They are links only by Bush, and he's just an idiot.